kumble_rocks Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 Don't worry about searching for his speech. I have heard snippets of it. As far as I am concerned, a speech is just that - a speech. If he is afraid of being called a traitor when he really is not one, so be it. If he votes based on how it will affect his campaign, while really not believing in his vote, so be it. If he's not principled enough to stand up to "the game," how can you trust him when he is in the White House? Do not consider this an endorsement of McCain on my part. It is not - all I am doing is trying to show BHO for what he is - just another petty politician. If this makes me a neo-con, so be it. This is my "so-be-it" post of the day! He could be a petty politician and certainly not my horse . But , doesn't the irony escape you , here we have samples like DR with their chest thumping and sabre rattling against Islam and Islamic terrorism siding with Neo cons who feel that Pakistan is our ally in the war against Islamic terrorism . Obama feels that epi-center of this terrorism is Quetta and NW Pakistan /Afghanistan and the neo cons actually made fun of Obama's assessment especially when he said that he is not averse to American troops invading Pakistan to stop Al-qaeda ...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 I guess cricaddict beat me to that response... Do you see KR how you have assumed Obama to be great and have alibis for even his flipflop and rank lying to one and all.. He is lcheating himself for some cheap vote as u have accepted..Not presidential I guess I prefer plain-speaking idiot like Bush over these sort of characters who would say one thing and do totally different.. In their case you don't know what you are getting into ... Leadership demands conviction if he believe in something he should stand by it.. Otherwise even his supposedly good points can be put in the bracket of playing to gallery. After all you have proven how he plays to the gallery when it comes to voting on issues where he supposedly is much vocal. Another politician in fact more dangerous than those without knotted tongue..
kumble_rocks Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 I guess cricaddict beat me to that response... Do you see KR how you have assumed Obama to be great and have alibis for even his flipflop and rank lying to one and all.. He is lcheating himself for some cheap vote as u have accepted..Not presidential I guess I prefer plain-speaking idiot like Bush over these sort of characters who would say one thing and do totally different.. In their case you don't know what you are getting into ... Leadership demands conviction if he believe in something he should stand by it.. Otherwise even his supposedly good points can be put in the bracket of playing to gallery. After all you have proven how he plays to the gallery when it comes to voting on issues where he supposedly is much vocal. Another politician in fact more dangerous than those without knotted tongue.. Flipflop , do you even know what it means? What about McCain flip flops ? He was against Bush tax cuts in 2004 and now in 2008 he supports it and wants to make it permanent .. Talk about mother of all flip flops .. He was for amnesty for illegals aliens and sponsored a bill along with Senator Kennedy only to be defeated by the republicans in the Senate and now during the election he wants to secure the border first pandering to the neo cons , he was against off shore drilling and now wants to drill offshore .. He was against the endorsement Evangelical Christian base in 2000 and now wanted Hagee's endorsement only to be disappointed . This guy has practically changed his position on almost everything .. Can't blame him though , he wants the Conservative base for campaigning his finance which by the way , he wants to reconsider his position on vis a vis Campaign finance reform bill which he sponsored...
Lurker Posted July 28, 2008 Posted July 28, 2008 Lurker I am sure you do not buy everythign that mcCain says about Obama why excpetion in thsi case.. Do not go by what mccai says about Obama or Obama says about Mccain go by what these respective individuals say as senator about themselves.. And it's on record Mr rock-star sometimes pulls that 16 months sometimes agrees with Mccain stand.. basically he has no clue and is trying to make himself look scholarlry in this matter hence this flip-flop......... OTOH Mccain has been consistent on thsi issue.. Huh what kind of weird logic is that?? I am actually quoting from the horse's mouth. I have actually gave example of what McCain is saying himself. And you are being argumentative about that??? I mean seriously mate I do understand you have to disagree and all that but why at the cost of killing the basic sense of understanding? McCain has HIMSELF stated that Obama NEVER supported the war and so YES I am going to take his word and not at some links. xxx
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 29, 2008 Posted July 29, 2008 I am asking you to not judge McCAin by Obama;s word and vice-versa.. politicians say darn things abotu each other.. Just go by their words about themselves.. i guess it's fair thing to ask.. You seriously aren;t going to give credence to all Mccain-speak about Obama are you......
Brainfade Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 If what CNN is saying is accurate, this whole trip didn't make a huge impact (it DID win him all of Berlin's electoral votes :-)) . Regardless, it looks like he'll pull it off. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/campaign.poll/index.html
Ram Posted July 31, 2008 Author Posted July 31, 2008 One thing about American Politics that confounds me is, the party's affiliation doesnt seem to affect the candidature of the democratic and republican nominees for the President. You would like to think, with the near disastrous term of the Republican president Bush, when he led his country into a bloody war and wrecked the economy, most of the Americans would stay away from Voting for the republican candidate, whoever he is. But, the way the Presidential race is strucutured here, is like the two candiates are judged based on their individual merits and de-merits alone, what they have done in the past and not what their party did last time it was power. Simply put, in America, there doesnt seem to be anything called Anti-incumbency factor. Its how charismatic and popular the nominees are, that matters.
triam Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 If you looked around a bit CA you would see myself and KR supporting Ron Paul when he was still in the race. Now of course it makes little sense to support him. Lurker, If the basis of your supporting Ron Paul was his overall political message and not just the anti war stance alone, then theoritically you are more towards the republican way of government rather than the democratic way of government, is that a right statement? iam just curious, since i tend to lean towards libertarian cause most of the time. And pure classical republican agenda is closer towards libertarian ethos.
kumble_rocks Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 I am pretty neutral when it comes to McCain or Obama . I am a social liberal , but fiscally conservative small government leaning, unfortunately American two party system is limited in it's appeal for independents such that I don't endorse either party , just the candidates. For me, universal health care is a must , hence my support for Obama. Gay marriage , gun control , abortion and other social issues can be put in the back burner for now. Stupid republicans are realizing that codifying gay marriage ban in the constitution is hardly relevant in the present conundrum of high oil price , bad economy etc. Same with other social issues like abortion , flag burning etc. Either candidate will face the same issues in Iraq and we may as well as milk them .. after all the war was fought for oil ... I would be happy the American troops are redeployed from Baghdad ( where their is no Oil) to Oil rich kirkut , Basra etc to protect our interest and minimize casualty. I know that's not a principled position , but so be it. For me , if Obama chooses Clinton for VP , I support Obama and if McCain chooses Romney , I will endorse McCain because Romney is good for economy . If neither happens , I would support Obama , simply because Bush third time will suck big time...
Brainfade Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 I am pretty neutral when it comes to McCain or Obama . I am a social liberal , but fiscally conservative small government leaning, unfortunately American two party system is limited in it's appeal for independents such that I don't endorse either party , just the candidates. For me, universal health care is a must , hence my support for Obama. Gay marriage , gun control , abortion and other social issues can be put in the back burner for now. Stupid republicans are realizing that codifying gay marriage ban in the constitution is hardly relevant in the present conundrum of high oil price , bad economy etc. Same with other social issues like abortion , flag burning etc. Either candidate will face the same issues in Iraq and we may as well as milk them .. after all the war was fought for oil ... I would be happy the American troops are redeployed from Baghdad ( where their is no Oil) to Oil rich kirkut , Basra etc to protect our interest and minimize casualty. I know that's not a principled position , but so be it. For me , if Obama chooses Clinton for VP , I support Obama and if McCain chooses Romney , I will endorse McCain because Romney is good for economy . If neither happens , I would support Obama , simply because Bush third time will suck big time... KR, somewhere in this thread, Lurker said that there was a point when you and he supported Ron Paul. Assuming that it true, and considering that universal healthcare is the most important issue to you, it is really confusing that you would now support Obama's healthcare plan, which seems diametrically opposite to Ron Paul's plan. From my perspective, Ron Paul's plan made the most sense (but, I've been through this ad nauseum on this board, and don't want to belabor the point any more).
kumble_rocks Posted July 31, 2008 Posted July 31, 2008 KR' date=' somewhere in this thread, Lurker said that there was a point when you and he supported Ron Paul. Assuming that it true, and considering that universal healthcare is the most important issue to you, it is really confusing that you would now support Obama's healthcare plan, which seems diametrically opposite to Ron Paul's plan. From my perspective, Ron Paul's plan made the most sense (but, I've been through this ad nauseum on this board, and don't want to belabor the point any more).[/quote'] Ideally I am not in favor of too much bureaucracy ..I guess , that's what universal health care would imply . Ron Paul wants small government state level handling of all issues .. I don't have an issue with that ! I liked his stance on Iraq and Iran . This guy knows foreign policy . They made him sound as if he is an idiot simply because he refused to comply with party lines ...My problem with McCain's health care plan is it does not address pre-existing conditions properly . He gave some vague solution that involves state pool to address pre-existing condition , not happy with his answers ..Giving back few dollars tax credit is worthless in my opinion . Obama clearly states that he will cover pre-existing condition and his health care plan will be effective before his term expires . I like what Romney did in Mass when he was the governor , he did cover pre-existing conditions and mandated that everybody have insurance . Think about it , we have become slaves to Group Medical Insurance and in effect corporate companies .Mark my words , entrepreneurship will be eventually destroyed if this problem of medical insurance is not addressed immediately. It's too too risky not be covered by Group Medical Insurance. Also, since I am fiscally conservative small government , less spending individual I would endorse the libertarian principles , but I am hardly a social conservative , so I guess I am an independent .
Brainfade Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Ideally I am not in favor of too much bureaucracy ..I guess ' date=' that's what universal health care would imply . Ron Paul wants small government state level handling of all issues .. I don't have an issue with that ! I liked his stance on Iraq and Iran . .[/quote'] Am a bit dense this morning, but I don't see how small government equates to universal health care? Ron Paul wants to completely take the government out of healthcare, and let people make their own choices. Obama wants complete government control over healthcare. I don't believe anyone can mandate that insurance companies should cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies will go out of business. Just imagine this scenario: -- I have a crappy insurance plan because the government says that I have to have insurance, but I can't afford a good plan. -- Then, I am diagnosed with a serious heart condition -- Now, I go and try to buy a better plan that will have to shell out $100,000 to fix me up. They can't deny me because of the government mandate. For how long can insurance companies sustain this? http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_health_care_plan.html I read the above article and its associated links in full. I hope you have the time to do so - it is quite enlightening. Insurance companies will either find loopholes or go out of business. In my opinion, the liberals (including McCain) are barking up the wrong tree. The target should be at the cost-end - the goal should be to streamline healthcare so it costs less, not to try to find ways of paying the high costs. The only way that can be accomplished is by: (a) giving patients control over their individual healthcare by letting patients and doctors negotiate rates - take the government out; take the HMOs out (b) allowing drug reimportation © reducing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits (d) Allowing deduction of ALL medical expenses from ones taxes. I had promised not to belabor healthcare on this board; I broke it. But, I promise again. Not gonna do it anymore - at least not until I read Doc's links fom a month ago :-)!
kumble_rocks Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Am a bit dense this morning, but I don't see how small government equates to universal health care? Ron Paul wants to completely take the government out of healthcare, and let people make their own choices. Obama wants complete government control over healthcare. I didn't believe anyone can mandate that insurance companies should cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies will go out of business. Just imagine this scenario: -- I have a crappy insurance plan because the government says that I have to have insurance, but I can't afford a good plan. -- Then, I am diagnosed with a serious heart condition -- Now, I go and try to buy a better plan that will have to shell out $100,000 to fix me up. They can't deny me because of the government mandate. For how long can insurance companies sustain this? http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_health_care_plan.html I read the above article and its associated links in full. I hope you have the time to do so - it is quite enlightening. Insurance companies will either find loopholes or go out of business. In my opinion, the liberals (including McCain) are barking up the wrong tree. The target should be at the cost-end - the goal should be to streamline healthcare so it costs less, not to try to find ways of paying the high costs. The only way that can be accomplished is by: (a) giving patients control over their individual healthcare by letting patients and doctors negotiate rates - take the government out; take the HMOs out (b) allowing drug reimportation © reducing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits (d) Allowing deduction of ALL medical expenses from ones taxes. I had promised not to belabor healthcare on this board; I broke it. But, I promise again. Not gonna do it anymore - at least not until I read Doc's links fom a month ago :-)! I didn't say how small government equates to universal health care! I said I normally endorse libertarian principles , but in the case health insurance I am actually endorsing exactly the opposite , simply because we have hobson's choice between McCain and Obama . One supports pre-existing , other doesn't . If you read my post carefully , I support Romney because his plan has already been implemented in Mass and it's closer to Ron Paul. I agree that the cost end should be stream lined and Let me address your pontification . (a) giving patients control over their individual healthcare by letting patients and doctors negotiate rates - take the government out; take the HMOs out - agree with point a) , keep in mind Obama's plan allows you to buy insurance across states , so in effect will provide better control over individual healthcare insurance. (b) allowing drug reimportation - - agree with point b) But the republican party has been so corrupted by the pharma lobby that any law supporting this never get's passed . © reducing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits - agree with point c) But in this case , the democratic party has been so corrupted by the trial lawyer lobby that they resist any law which addresses this issue. Keep in mind , President Bush wanted the half million cap . The issue is not whether the patient/victim gets the money in my opinion , the issue is how much should be the lawyer's cut. (d) Allowing deduction of ALL medical expenses from ones taxes. - disagree , it's totally irrelevant. I am more concerned with medical bills running into 250 K plus amount. Heck , let's say you have high blood pressure and get a stroke , your bill will easily run into a million dollars. Anyways, will discuss later about this matter....
SachDan Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Some great posts. Lucky guys...atleast get to discuss aboutthe democracy you are living :((
Lurker Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Lurker, If the basis of your supporting Ron Paul was his overall political message and not just the anti war stance alone, then theoritically you are more towards the republican way of government rather than the democratic way of government, is that a right statement? iam just curious, since i tend to lean towards libertarian cause most of the time. And pure classical republican agenda is closer towards libertarian ethos. Triam, I was supporting Ron Paul amongst the Republican candidates. If you asked my opinion about Democratic candidates my first choice was Joe Biden. I can see why you would support Liberatarian. I am myself not too far removed from many of their thoughts. Specially I like the policy of non-interference(Paul was very clear on Iraq), conservative fiscal spending(which most Indians, including I am), less intereference of Governance, discouraging taxation etc etc.
Brainfade Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Triam, I was supporting Ron Paul amongst the Republican candidates. If you asked my opinion about Democratic candidates my first choice was Joe Biden. I can see why you would support Liberatarian. I am myself not too far removed from many of their thoughts. Specially I like the policy of non-interference(Paul was very clear on Iraq), conservative fiscal spending(which most Indians, including I am), less intereference of Governance, discouraging taxation etc etc. Except for his verbal stance on Iraq (not his voting record, if you are to believe the well-researched website that I posted), Obama is diametrically opposed to every one of the above policies. You shouldn't touch the young Senator with a 10-ft. pole. Dadgummit .... this thread is hard to resist.
triam Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 Triam, I was supporting Ron Paul amongst the Republican candidates. If you asked my opinion about Democratic candidates my first choice was Joe Biden. I can see why you would support Liberatarian. I am myself not too far removed from many of their thoughts. Specially I like the policy of non-interference(Paul was very clear on Iraq), conservative fiscal spending(which most Indians, including I am), less intereference of Governance, discouraging taxation etc etc. Lurker, That is why Iam confused with your support of Obama, Mccain is far more towards what you want than Obama, as a rule democrats want more interference of governance, more taxation for higher income people etc etc, the guy who was kinda ok was slick willy (clinton).
Lurker Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 That is why Iam confused with your support of Obama, Mccain is far more towards what you want than Obama, as a rule democrats want more interference of governance, more taxation for higher income people etc etc, the guy who was kinda ok was slick willy (clinton). Except for his verbal stance on Iraq (not his voting record, if you are to believe the well-researched website that I posted), Obama is diametrically opposed to every one of the above policies. You shouldn't touch the young Senator with a 10-ft. pole. Fair argument both. Yes an average Democrat will go against many of the issues I have mentioned ( less governance, less taxation etc). But then you have to consider other aspects as well. I have absolutely no interest in McCain antics of being in Iraq, or going to war in Iran(which he most definitely will). I have no interest in McCain when he openly states that he is NOT going to talk to countries like North Korea and Iran and workout differences. But more importantly I dont have interest probably because McCain ver2.0(2008) is so much worse than McCain 1.0(2000) when he was very much his own man and not bending backwads to garner support from COnservatives. Lets put it this way. Most Independent, middle of the line folks like me would have supported McCain in 2000, today most of us shall support Obama.
triam Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Fair enough Lurker, Mccain 1.0 was indeed far better, imagine US if he was the republican nominee instead of the dickwad bush.
Recommended Posts